Page 76 of 485
54
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Party, and there should be no prohibition to deprive people a chance to speak. Of course, the procedural motion may not be carried. Since the original motion has a mover and a seconder, I hope that the motion can be fully discussed. If we refer it to the Working Party, it will be a waste of time, so we should not waste time on procedural matters. Please deal with this swiftly Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Procedurally speaking, I have to follow the Standing Order. If a Member has moved a procedural motion, then we have to deal with that. So I will allow Members to speak once on the procedural motion moved by Mr. Ambrose CHEUNG.
Mr. Lai Hok-LIM (in Cantonese): It is clear that Standing Order 18 is a closure and dilatory motion. I think the original motion has to be fully discussed before the closure or dilatory motion is put to a vote. Since there are many Members on the speaking list like Mr. San Stephen WONG, Mr. WONG Kwok-hing and Mr. Tim S. Manuel CHAN, they should be allowed to speak on the original motion. It is not the procedural motion, but the original motion which has to be given a chance for full discussion before the procedural motion is put to a vote.
Ms. CHRISTINA TING (in Cantonese): If I recall correctly, this is not the first time the Council is faced with a procedural motion. Last year, on the self-financing policy of the Hong Kong Stadium, after the mover and seconder had spoken, Mr. Stephen Lau moved a procedural motion similar to Mr. CHEUNG'S. So the present case is not an unprecedented one, so Mr. CHEUNG'S motion can be put to vote now.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): According to my experience, I have to handle Mr. CHEUNG's procedural motion. After moving and seconding, Mr. CHEUNG'S motion should be put to vote. I have to follow established procedure. Of course, Members' queries on whether the procedure is correct or not can be a matter to be reviewed with advice of the legal advisor. Do Members want to speak on Mr. Cheung's motion?
MR. STANLEY NG (in Cantonese): I move the motion because of the following reasons. First, on 27 April at a Yau Tsim Mong District Board meeting, a similar question was raised. Secondly, today, apart from the Lai Chi Kok Park, many Urban Council projects are facing a similar situation. Thirdly, I want to query the present land allocation arrangement. As the motion will not interfere with the work of the Working Party, I hope Members can support my motion.
MR. ERIC WONG (in Cantonese): I am disappointed that by moving a procedural motion, Members' freedom to give their views are suppressed. I believe the residents of Sham Shui Po District have expressed their view very clearly. The Sham Shui Po District Board has expressed very clearly. They have expressed their discontent over the department's failure to collaborate in the
Page 76 of 485
Page 76 of 485
Page 76 of 485
54
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Party, and there should be no prohibition to deprive people a chance to speak. Of course, the procedural motion may not be carried. Since the original motion has a mover and a seconder, I hope that the motion can be fully discussed. If we refer it to the Working Party, it will be a waste of time, so we should not waste time on procedural matters. Please deal with this swiftly Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):-Procedurally speaking. I have to follow the Standing Order. If a Member has moved a procedural motion, then we have to deal with that. So I will allow Members to speak once on the procedural motion moved by Mr. Ambrose CHEUNG.
Mr. Lai Hok-LIM (in Cantonese):—It is clear that Standing Order 18 is a closure and dilatory motion. I think the original motion has to be fully discussed before the closure or dilatory motion is put to a vote. Since there are many Members on the speaking list like Mr. San Stephen WONG, Mr. WONG Kwok-hing and Mr. Tim S. Manuel CHAN, they should be allowed to speak on the original motion. It is not the procedural motion, but the original motion which has to be given a chance for full discussion before the procedural motion is put to a vote.
Ms. CHRISTINA TING (in Cantonese):-If I recall correctly, this is not the first time the Council is faced with a procedural motion. Last year, on the self-financing policy of the Hong Kong Stadium, after the mover and seconder had spoken. Mr. Stephen Lau moved a procedural motion similar to Mr. CHEUNG'S. So the present case is not an unprecedented one, so Mr. CHEUNG'S motion can be put to vote now.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):-According to my experience I have to handle Mr. CHEUNG's procedural motion. After moving and seconding. Mr. CHEUNG'S motion should be put to vote. I have to follow established procedure. Of course Members' queries on whether the procedure is correct or not can be a matter to be reviewed with advice of the legal advisor. Do Members want to speak on Mr. Cheung's motion?
MR. STANLEY NG (in Cantonese):—I move the motion because of the following reasons. First, on 27 April at a Yau Tsim Mong District Board meeting a similar question was raised. Secondly, today apart from the Lai Chi Kok Park, many Urban Council projects are facing a similar situation. Thirdly, I want to query the present land allocation arrangement. As the motion will not interfere with the work of the Working Party, I hope Members can support my motion.
MR. ERIC WONG (in Cantonese):-I am disappointed that by moving a procedural motion, Members' freedom to give their views are suppressed. I believe the residents of Sham Shui Po District have expressed their view very clearly. The Sham Shui Po District Board has expressed very clearly. They have expressed their discontent over the department's failure to collaborate in the
Page 76 of 485
of 485
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.